COA rules on coal bed gas dispute

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In settling a dispute between two Illinois companies regarding who has the legal right to recover coal bed methane gas, the Indiana Court of Appeals made its decision based on public safety and ruled in favor of the company assigned the coal bed gas lease.

The issue in Cimmaron Oil Corp. v. Howard Energy Corp., No. 26A01-0902-CV-67, is whether a 1976 lease that Cimmaron's predecessor obtained for the right to drill for and produce oil and gas includes the exclusive right to drill for and produce coal bed methane gas (CBM).

The Hardimans own the real property in Gibson County at question in the suit. In addition to the 1976 lease Cimmaron has, the Hardimans granted a coal bed gas lease to Howard Energy in 2001. In 2003, Howard Energy filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Cimmaron and the Hardimans. Howard Energy argues the Cimmaron lease covers only the oil and gas estate and includes only the conventional natural gas emanating from the coal, while its lease holds the right to extract the coal bed methane.

The trial court issued declaratory judgment in favor of Howard Energy, adopting the "eastern rule" that CBM is part of the coal estate, and no interest in CBM passed by reason of the 1976 oil and gas lease. The trial judge also discussed public safety and how giving away control of the CBM from the coal mine operator wouldn't serve public interest.

Because the concept of producing CBM for commercial gain wasn't possible in 1976, it's up to the courts to determine whether that lease somehow permits it.

The Court of Appeals used rulings from other jurisdictions on the presumed or surmised intent in the grant of oil and gas leases pre-dating current technology. Some courts have considered CBM as part of the coal bed estate, as part of the oil and gas estate, or a distinct mineral estate.

The trial court in the instant case followed the "eastern rule" that CBM is a component of coal and CBM production and coal mining are best left in the control of a single entity, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. Cimmaron would rather the court adopt the "western rule," which says the holder of a broadly defined gas and oil estate may have rights to CBM, which is a form of gas.

The gas estate owner wasn't granted permission in the lease to invade the coal seam, which would be necessary to produce the CBM. In fact, the CBM would be from virgin coal seams and would require fracturing the seam with high pressure.

"The Hardimans did not explicitly agree to Cimarron's invasion of the coal bed in this manner; it is not reasonable to presume that the intent was to permit invasion of a valuable land asset, the coal bed, should a means of making profits arise in the future," wrote the judge.

The appellate court declined to adopt either rule, but agreed with the trial court that public policy would militate toward considering CBM to be part of the coal bed.

"Public safety would be disserved by pitting the miner who needs to dissipate CBM to prevent explosions against the gas estate owner whose financial resource is being depleted," wrote Judge Bailey. "Nevertheless, it is within the province of the Legislature, to which we defer, to make policy decisions."


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?